www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Does the rejection of Western doctrines make a man anti-Catholic?

Gordo,

Todd can correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that the Orthodox (at least now) view all bishops as Peter's successor. Moreover, primacy for them is based on Rome's position in the Roman Empire, not on Peter.

And so where does that place the Patriarch of Constantinople (now Istanbul) vis-a-vis Moscow?

I will only point out, as I have often heard from my spiritual father, the Patriarchal structure of the church is really only a 4th century canonical development. And the last time I checked the Roman empire, the emperor and Constantinople qua Constantinople for that matter no longer exists.

This is not a matter AT ALL for gloating, but is only a sad matter of fact. It is also an argument for why the primacy cannot be bound by the temporal and transitory order of things. Petrine succession is the only guarantee of catholicity. And this notion that Petrine succession exists in every bishop can only be regarded as true in a purely secondary sense. (And yes - I know the quote from Augustine.) Each bishop is entrusted with the faith of Peter and, to maintain catholicity, is connected collegially to the successor of St. Peter who is simultaneously the Bishop of Rome.

Truth be told, the only cities of "eternal" value from the perspective of Scripture and Tradition are Rome and Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the Davidic royal city and the "Pentecostal mother" of all churches, and Rome is the "matrix" or womb of catholicity and the full seat of Petrine succession.

Gordo

Matt,

Yes, to the best of my knowledge the Eastern Orthodox Churches hold that every bishop is a successor and vicar of Peter. Moreover, they hold that there is no special charism of primacy distinct from the order of episcopacy; and, as a consequence, all bishops are ontologically equal, and no bishop can have power over another bishop.

God bless,
Todd

Constance.

Andrew

Gordo,

On this issue I have latin sympathies and I think you raise some good points; in fact, I myself have raised similair ones in discussions elsewhere. Moreover, I will go farther and say that the typical Orthodox rejoinders seem unsatisfactory. However, Cannon 28 of Chalcedon may be an issue. Of course, whether one should consider it "valid" is still debated I guess since Leo didn't hold to it. Even if it has no binding strength it's worth quoting to understand the Eastern viewpoint.

"...we do also enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the one hundred fifty most religious Bishops gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city is honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome...." (Canon 28, Chalcedon)

BTW, just to clarify, I do not intend to diminish the importance of the Patriarchal role as the head of a sui juris church. This was in fact upheld by Vatican II (not to mention Nicea and a few other councils!). My point was only to say that the place of Rome in the empire had very little to do with the establishment of the primacy per se. If that is the argument, then the hierarchs of Washington, DC, London and Moscow are at present being jipped!

The primacy by its very nature as Petrine cannot be tied only to the temporal order. The fact that the pope is the elected head of the college of bishops DOES in fact vest him with a certain power of jurisdiction beyond his patriarchal boundaries. This power should be used to support, not usurp, the role of the local ordinary.

Gordo

Thanks, Matt. I would argue that this is not just a Latin perspective, although I doubt Todd would concur.

Thank you for the quote on Chalcedon. I need to consider this quote more.

Gordo

Gordo,

This is the very point in dispute; and so, you cannot simply assume that the Pope has a special charism distinct from the sacramental order of episcopacy, instead you must prove it.

In addition, I do not agree with your interpretation of the Melkite Patriarch's comments, because he does not claim anything related to his particular See; instead, he simply asserts that the Petrine ministry and the ministry of Patriarchs are equal.

Finally, it is quite clear that many of the privileges given to Rome during the first millennium are connected to the temporal order; and so, one must be careful not to anachronistically read back into the first millennium the Roman doctrine of the primacy proclaimed by the First Vatican Council.

God bless,
Todd

Dear brother Matt,
Can I ask that you not refer to the agreement on this issue as a �Latin sympathy.� The position that brother Gordo proposed, the historic position of the Latin Church, is ALSO the historic position of the Alexandrian Church � namely, that the status and honor of a Church does not depend on her political status, but solely on her apostolicity. And it is ALSO the historic position of the ENTIRE Church West, Oriental AND East since the Sixth Ecumenical Council, as will be explained in the next paragraph.

As far as Canon 28 of Chalcedon, its renewal by the Council of Trullo, which obtained ecumenical approval by the Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils, easily demonstrates that the position Gordo proposed is the position of the Church catholic. When Canon 28 was renewed by the Council of Trullo, the very elements that Rome protested and annulled � the fact that Constantinople was given its privileges because it was the capital of the empire � was completely excised from the language of the canon. I feel compelled to point out that Rome was alone in this defense of apostolic Tradition (from a historic point of view, that is, since Alexandria was regarded as being out of communion at the time), and it was the East that eventually came around.

Blessings,
Marduk

Well, I both agree and disagree, because certainly, as I have already indicated, some of the Bishop of Rome's privileges were accorded to him for temporal reasons, but his See is also important because of the martyrdoms of St. Peter and St. Paul.

Nevertheless, the decree of the First Vatican Council does not represent the life and experience of the undivided Church of the first millennium. In fact, as Catholic scholar Hermann Pottmeyer has shown, the doctrine of Vatican I was a response to the 19th century political difficulties being experienced by the Church, and to a rejection of Gallicanism.

God bless,
Todd

Dear brother Todd,
I�m afraid this is an idea that is not patristic at all. Patriarchs in the Catholic Churches and Oriental Orthodox Churches have more prerogatives � prerogatives established by Ecumenical Councils in the first millennium � than those that modern EO Patriarchs possess. The head bishop is a divinely instituted organ of the CHURCH, and cannot be separated from the Church, and he has a divine charism to lead the flock and be the point of unity for his brother bishops around him. I guess unity in the Church is not as much of a grace within Eastern Orthodoxy as it is within Catholicism or Oriental Orthodoxy, for surely if you believe that unity is a special imperative and responsibility given to the head bishop by God Himself, it must require a special grace from God in order for him to realize its fulfillment. That a head bishop is nothing more than a figurehead with merely administrative powers in the Eastern Orthodox Church is clearly a departure from patristic and orthodox ecclesiology. In ecumenical talks, the EO simply cannot sit there and expect the Latins to do all the work. The EO must also humbly realize its own departures from the patristic standards and work at rediscovering/reacquiring its own roots from the first millennium which she may have inadvertently discarded as an overreaction towards the Latin Church, and in the process Easterns, Latins, and Orientals can all come together with common ground.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk,

Your statements about the authority of the Patriarch of Alexandria are incorrect, in that they do not mirror the Roman Church's claims, because as Fr. Schmemann points out in his article on the primacy, it was the Council of Nicaea that granted the privileges of primate to the Bishop of Alexandria. Thus, the Alexandrian Pope does not claim, as a matter of divine faith, that he has been given primacy in Africa.

God bless,
Todd

Certainly the Roman idea is not patristic, but I am sure that is not what you are referring to; but by all means, prove that what I have said about there not being a charism of primacy is contrary to the teachings of the Fathers.

God bless,
Todd

Todd,

To be sure, the Church and her defined dogmas cannot be removed entirely from historical considerations.

As to the proof of the primacy, you and I both know the quotes from East and West that are often shared to demonstrate the primacy of Rome as a matter of its bishop's connection to St. Peter, and the city's connection to the martyrdoms of Sts. Peter and Paul. Other resources exist that help establish this fact, while others attempt to debunk it. Greater minds than ours have wrestled with this, and come to no firm historical conclusion. (Even Aidan Nichols, OP admits this.) Unfortunately, I have dedicated too much time to this already today - so the discussion here for me will have to wait. Perhaps it is its own thread?

As to who assserts what, I can only state what I believe to be true as a matter of faith because the Catholic Church proposes it for me to believe and I recognize her authority. I see in the historical record evidences that support this view, but ultimately either one believes or doesn't. (Sometimes, admittedly, it is more of a matter of "Lord I believe! Help my unbelief!") We could argue quotes and historical events all day long, but eventually I believe it boils down to that.

God's blessing and thanks for the discussion,

Gordo

The funny thing about many of the posts being made in this thread is that they assume that I reject the primacy of the Pope, when -- in fact -- I accept it. I simply reject the idea of Papal supremacy.

Gordo,

If you would like to carry on a private conversation on this, or any other theological topic, feel free to instant message me. My screen name is Apotheoun on MSN, Yahoo, and AIM.

God bless,
Todd